Skip to main content

tv   Right Side With Armstrong Williams  CBS  September 17, 2016 4:30am-5:00am CDT

4:30 am
s. >> armstrong: no matter what you have heard of the topic of racism, you will never hear this like you do here. that is up next. >> armstrong: kimberly atkins, she is the cohost chair, she will join me to ask the tough questions of our fine guest are bruce fine. give us the back ground. everybody seems to have the
4:31 am
no one saw it coming, except the people in here. tell us what we need to know. >> guest: the first thing we need to recognize is great britain didn't join the european union 20 years after its birth. so britain operating outside of the european union, is not a novelty. after all it's supposed to be one world and one unified economic market, why we could apply. there's not a requirement that your states be contiguous, and great britain is not contiguous as a continent. i put that in the background. because great brittan operating outside of the european union is not something that has happened before. once it's in the european union you have all sorts of economic integration in the european institutions.
4:32 am
the european union treaty, great britain exercised its right to withdraw by a majority vote. now that isn't in great britain, it's not legally binding in the parliament, and de facto, no one believes that the leader of the government looks like would be a woman conservative would reject the popular vote and invoked article 50 of, but until article 50 is remains as before. what happens at that point is great britain and the european union would negotiate some alternative to full enter grace. norway has something like that, where norway is not a full part of the european uninotio, and accepts the travel, and accepts the comply with the european union wide regulations and things of that sort, and we don't know what is going to actually be the new relationship between great britain and the
4:33 am
new leader selected and that is not going to be for another week or so where the candidate in the conservative party have been dwindled to two, and negotiations begin. we had a brexit vote preceded by the sentiment of nationalism, sort of a take our country back message that we have seen mirrored here in the united states with the donald trump campaign. are those compares at, and can you talk more about what led to this vote apt the comparisons are. to take our country back. it's just taking it back to where it was in 1975. for most of the history of great britain, it's not been a part of european uninotio. that doesn't mean that it doesn't have trade arrangements, diplomatic arrangements, and we have european wide and soccer teams, that thing as well. i think more symbolism with the regard to the idea that a huge
4:34 am
britain and in large part because it was more economically attractive than the other countries, caused many to believe that they are being displaced and this is way way they can try to get a handle on immigration. we ourselves show that just because you're independent, doesn't mean you control your borders. we're not a part of the european union and we have illegal immigration that comes in mass, because the economic incentives and the desire of businesses to have low cost wages and that is going to persist no matter what. much by symbols as opposed to substance, and there's no doubt that there's a feeling that is overwhelm from immigrants from the 28 european nations and many some of those that are coming from the war zones and the middle east and make them feel alienated at a time when the economy was not robust. follow-up kimberly's point, do you think the britts understand the consequences, and the damages of this vote in the
4:35 am
listen, the uk is the 4th largest military might in the world, and that was something that the spire europe really depended on. how will that impact, europeans militarily, and do they really understand. was it emotional. was it influenced bit russians who stand to benefit from them. >> guest: i don't think so. the question is a very profound one, because political leaders of the brexit movement, didn't have a plan at all. i think they were surprised they would not they don't have a plan as to how to negotiate the exit, because it was a surprise vote. i had spoke to friends there, a couple of weeks before, and they insisted that the economic issue would be so overwhelming that when push came to shove there would be shying away from
4:36 am
don't think there was a plan. we don't know what the consequences are will be, when there's an arrangement, which could range from great britain to being in the same relationship to the european union as the united states, or like norway that makes it almost de facto in member of the european union. we don't know until further down the road toward negotiations. i think that the voters voting against something rather than for something which is not unusual. the voters here oftentimes vote against the candidate. they vote someone in who is unknown and don't know what they have, that is human nature. hope springs eternal. the grass is greener on the other side and the in ill at a. >> armstrong: hold the military. bruce fines philosopher, and
4:37 am
washington reporter at boston
4:38 am
4:39 am
>> armstrong: welcome pack much, bruce fine our moral philosopher, and we were talking about the military. >> guest: we need to understand that nato is the backbone of the military defense in europe, and nato irrespective of the brexit vote. and with respect to other european countries. we're 95% of the military indication. we got the nukes, we still have 85,000 troops stationed there. we had to bail out the europeans over the breakup of yugoslavia. we are the ones who attacked
4:40 am
they are aiming at 2% of the gmp that they contribute to the forces but when you say great britain the 4th largest military power of the world. that is fine. we're super giant. we're second place, that you can hardly even see. we spend $7 billion in the defense department alone. i don't think that the british exit has any military significance whatsoever. it may have, you know, optic alsignificance because it makes it look britain would throw its forces to aid europe putin becomes aggressive. and the baltic states, and the obama himself, the president was in poland this week reinforcing the commitment of the united states to defend the periphery
4:41 am
putin. >> what about security issues within europe. is it going to have any effect there? one of the issues driving voters was this fear of security of terrorism of these so-called open borders in that sense. >> guest: i don't think that the issue of security really is affected by the by the brexit, there's been complaints because there's no belgium and france, and oftentimes information is not shared completely. i don't think that is effective. great britain is part of five eyes, this is the united states, canada, australia, and new zealand share the intelligence. and we gather most of it through the security agency and great britain itself has been less dangerous. if you look at the historical
4:42 am
who travel to syria. the most prominent death of an am peed campaigning about remaining in the u.s. but another british advocate for brexit. i don't think that the terror impish uwill be affected. but i want to underscore, a lot of these things are what we call a placebo effect. i think the british will feel that they're more secure, they don't see as than they used to even if it doesn't have an impact on the incident. people live in their headsirrespective of what the fact on the ground are. this that effect, the british may feel more secure than they are not. >> let's talk about the economic fallout and the banks. >> guest: we already know that many of the invest funds that invested heavily in commercial interstate in london have frozen
4:43 am
they are expecting that value of the pound has fallen below 10% of what it was at the time of the brexit vote. and there's obviously, going to be an economic disadvantages to operating with less broad economic market. i mean that was one the great things of the united states is we broke down. you know, the parochial interests when we came au unified country so that the economic could satisfy the scales of larger market now. part of the uncertainty in determining what the economic impact, is we don't know what it's going to replace the membership in the european union. it could range from almost complete independence, like the united states or very, very proximate to what it was before, which is what norway enjoys. we do know that uncertainty always is economically harmful
4:44 am
secure, and right now britain because of the uncertainty of what the landscape is going to look like going forward that becomes less secure or predictable, it will come to the united states for example, where the strength of the dollar has been remarkable after the brexit. that is true. kim. >> guest: so what can officials here in the united states do to sort of keep the markets here as stable as possible while the situation with the brexit is worked out? >> guest: well, the united states there's really nothing that the united states can do to dispel the uncertainty of the situation with the great britain and the european union until they negotiate a replacement. we can't control that. the british don't have a new prime minister and until that happens, the negotiations can't begin. so we just need to give, you know, words of reassurance. this is going to be a period of
4:45 am
diminish the uncertainty because until a new agreement is reached, no one knows what the new rules of the game are going to be. >> armstrong: when we come back, we want to continue the brexit. i was just in london and europe, and i was just, the reprimand that former prime minister tony blair received over iraq, which is also a message to former president w was just -- it was something to watch. i mean, it was really, humiliating. it was almost in tears. we will talk about that when we
4:46 am
4:47 am
>> armstrong: the most stunning rebuke any head of state just
4:48 am
ago with the report after the investigation. were you surprised? >> guest: well, i'm not surprised at the rebuke. i'm very pleasantly surprised that the parliament did have the courage to undertake a full pledged investigation of the facts and circumstances of then prime minister's eagerness to join george w. bush to invade iraq in 2003 based wrongful suspicion of weapons destruction. based on the fact that saddam hussein was the bad guy. if that was the standard, we would be invading 80 countries, including russia and china. we don't use that standard at all. we just pick and choose. i do think what is shows is that the importance of legislative oversight and review to say,
4:49 am
infallible, no, we need reagan, trust but verify. you guys can get it wrong. the secrecy in the decision-making process, even the disclosure that tony blair 8 months before the invasion told w that i'm with you. it doesn't matter what the fact are. the importance of sunshine, and tans appearancey. you can't expose secrets. but the net benefit is so because it prevents vietnams and wars that are unnecessary involve trillions of dollars, the killing of men and women who are brave and courageous give their life and they find it's nothing there. somebody died in iraq, what did they create. just in of the last week alone, there's been suicide bombing, 500 iraqis killed. we destroyed a country and walked away like pontius pilate,
4:50 am
it shows our congressional greatness, how come we don't have a congressional oversight and say we can't let this happen depend. we need transparency. we need answers. if not, the president has been at war with isis or isil for well over two years. we don't even have a vote on it even though congress is supposed to appropriate money. and the speak her of house doesn't want or not we should be at war in isis, and traveling arn the world. -- around the world we are fighting in six countries against isis. that should be the lesson to the united states. tony blair is not unique with regards to the secrecy when you're able to operate as the executive without any being ability. >> don't we have a lot of ongoing military operations in the world. we need our allies, might allies
4:51 am
board, some military action if they fear they will be rebuked later if it turns out it wasn't everything they thought it was going to be. >> guest: in some sense, that is good, because we don't want them though ump judge to an action that is misguided. that helps us. we need to say, we can make mistakes and oftentimes we end up with allies, because we're making wrong-headed decisions and the reason why we need allies is because we're not if we need saudi arabia, they have all the characteristics had a we view as a terrorist stakes, and whether it's a roone and boycott -- iran. they don't permit women to vote. they teach extreme religious bigotry with regard to anyone who is not a muslim. >> armstrong: this is the hard part with people like myself. do you think that bush and blair
4:52 am
>> guest: i think it's oftentimes, what shakespeare said, the wish is farther to the thought. they wanted to do it so much that they convinced themselves there must be weapons of mass destruction, because they wanted to do it. whether they subjectively knew it was a lie, they deceived them selves. they certainly had warning signals that was coming from the cia, we can't verify this, down below, i can't say that george tenet didn't say it was going to be he was the director, but i'm talking about other reports. we were pacing many of our decisions on known liars, even once the germans had been discredited that made up the idea that saddam hussein had weapons. it's very sad when you think of the consequences of going in iraq, all over the middle east. we will be back with pastor
4:53 am
4:54 am
4:55 am
? ? ? ? the whole idea of making your name great, a nation will come out of you and all of that is one word, one word, legacy! and i will tell you, your legacy is what you leave behind. the impact that you have on the world around you, the people that your life touched, good, bad, ugly, because there's some bad legacies out there, correct? put we think about legacy. you could have the highest office in the world, president
4:56 am
that is the highest office in the world and guess what? guess what? every president, even obama is thinking about right now his what? his legacy. because everything you do in life builds up to what you're going to leave behind your imprint. ? ? ? ? of. >> armstrong: you know, i'm a strong believer in the bible, and the bible tells nothing from me has brought it home more than what just happened the report in london, whatever is done in the dark comes to light. and this comes blazing and nobody in the world that doesn't understand it and has not been impacted. >> guest: we still have 4,000 soldiers in iraq this very moment.
4:57 am
ally is supposed to be. we are dropping bombs, and hoping it's the bad people whoever that happens to be. why are we still in iraq right now? it's making it worse. the sunni and the kurdish want independence, they will be fighting themselves for the next 100 years. where are we over there. >> guest: we thank you for joining us in the cohost today. i didn't prepare you for it. you found out the day you sat in your chair. bruce, keep telling the not lies, the truth. that's why we have the challenges in this election year because of what just happened in london. pray for america and the world. good day, everybody, armstrong
4:58 am
4:59 am
5:00 am
captioning made possible by rysher entertainment i'm marty stouffer. bison by the millions once grazed the heartland of north america. the culture, religion, and survival of native people


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on